Sonographic examination of 56 patients with benign lesions showed that (76.8%) had well defined margins and were homogenous (in 87.5%) and hypoechoic (in 41 %) but anechoic (in 39.350/0). Posterior enhancement was detected in (51.780/0).
Mammographic examination of these patients showed that, (67.9%) of lesions had vell defined margin and (60.70/0) was oflow
.,'.,
density. (46.4% ) were of intermediate size, while (33.9%) were of small size. Halo sign was a characteristic mammographic sign of benign lesions and found in (66%) of these cases.
While sonographic examination of 44 pat~ents with malignant masses showed that, (84.1 %) of masses had ill-defined margins and were heterogenous in (93.1 %). (86.40/0) of masses were hypoechoic. Attenuation of the posterior sound was found in (93.1 %). Enlarged axillary L.N. was detected in (660/0). Ultrasonography failed in detection of microcalcifications except 1n only one case (2.27%).
Mammographic examination of these patients showed that, all lesions were smaller in size than felt by palpation and they were irregular in shape in (77.3%) with spiculated margin in (66%). Most ofthe lesions (95.5%) were of high density. Microcalcifications were detected in (45%) while halo sign was found only in (13.6% ). Secondary mammographic signs of cancer as nipple retraction (54.5%), skin thickening (52.2%), skin retraction (50%), increased vascularity (43.2%) and axillary L.N. enlargement (63.5%) were olso detected. |
